Virtual Battle flaws allowing cheaters to prosper

[75291555313821]

There are those out there running multiple accounts for the purposes of cheating. Some will create an alternate account and log in on a separate device with it. They then load that alternate with two flags without officers, weapons or affiliate ships. Once the VB starts they wait about a minute to allow the initial people to match up but then they start their cheating. This is when they will hit the match button on both devices to heighten the odds of their main account matching with the severely weaker account. This way, they score a quick 30 points in 15 seconds and then do it again.

Is it a flawless cheat? Of course not. But how do you not fix this glaring flaw in the system? The entire point of this game is to have players compete to win virtual battle. So here you have the central piece of this game being manipulated by losers and yet it continues. Hey devs, anyone that has to do this isn't spending much money on your game so why are you allowing them to be rewarded? The people who paid you money are being screwed over.

But hey, what do I know. I'm not a officer at a financial company or anything. What do I know about business, right?

So why not fix it by not allowing players to join virtual battles without loading affiliate ships. There is no reason to allow it. The cheating stops when they can no longer get 30 points in 15 seconds.

[krom87]

it is necessary to do so that if one fight with someone is over, then the second time this player no longer comes across. and then there is no problem. twin comes across once in 40 minutes. I do not see the problem.

[48816187591]

I enjoy meeting those fleets. 4 quick wins. ill fight them any day

[75291555313821]

The problem is that the same player is both the strong fleet and the weak fleet. The player uses two devices and hits the match button with each account at the same time. So he fights the same player 7 times per virtual battle. That's 7 x 40 = 280 easy and fast points to ensure he wins each and every virtual battle. Still don't see the problem?

[48816187591]

Thats all good in theory. I really dont think it works that way..

[75291555313821]

It's not theory I see it in practice

[jamesdragonrider]

I have also encountered the no aff fleets with just a flagship.
One time, okay, they messed up, or didn't know what they were doing.
I have entered battle in VB with just flagships, so I see it as a newb mistake.
When the same fleet keeps coming through, then it is intentional.

There is a valid reason to do this:
You have 1 VB to get all 20 runs in, so you drop all aff for fast battles. Real battles take too long.

An overhaul of the VB system is in order. Interestingly enough, the systems are already implemented in the original STAD:
1) longer match times
2) cross server (so it isn't so obvious who is in the room, or when you can safely match yourself)
3) teams of 3 players (3 vs 3)
4) sign up, then let the matching run for the 40 minutes without player interaction.
5) Winners match with winners, and losers match with losers, so that you shake out who actually belongs at the top.

Additionally, there is a ranking system used by many games. You move up (higher score) when you win, and down when you lose.
To match the #1 guy, you need to be in the top 4 or 5.
To match 2-4 (or 5) you need to be in the top 10.
Top 10 can only be matched by those in the top 20.
Top 20 only by top 50. 50 by 100, 100 by 200.
Results could be done cross server, to give a larger player base, but then rewards set by your standings on your particular server.
Best of both worlds as players would have both a global and server ranking.

[780473362175]

So write it, release it, and be like Samba, only better... LOL

[45310938544]

I have also encountered the no aff fleets with just a flagship.
One time, okay, they messed up, or didn't know what they were doing.
I have entered battle in VB with just flagships, so I see it as a newb mistake.
When the same fleet keeps coming through, then it is intentional.

There is a valid reason to do this:
You have 1 VB to get all 20 runs in, so you drop all aff for fast battles. Real battles take too long.

An overhaul of the VB system is in order. Interestingly enough, the systems are already implemented in the original STAD:
1) longer match times
2) cross server (so it isn't so obvious who is in the room, or when you can safely match yourself)
3) teams of 3 players (3 vs 3)
4) sign up, then let the matching run for the 40 minutes without player interaction.
5) Winners match with winners, and losers match with losers, so that you shake out who actually belongs at the top.

Additionally, there is a ranking system used by many games. You move up (higher score) when you win, and down when you lose.
To match the #1 guy, you need to be in the top 4 or 5.
To match 2-4 (or 5) you need to be in the top 10.
Top 10 can only be matched by those in the top 20.
Top 20 only by top 50. 50 by 100, 100 by 200.
Results could be done cross server, to give a larger player base, but then rewards set by your standings on your particular server.
Best of both worlds as players would have both a global and server ranking.

Quickest way to ruin this game, start copying so called "features" from the dead one.#5 however would be a good way to "even" out matches, on winning ability not blindly by numbers, or so called "randomly".Cross server is ridiculous, cause desync's and lag, that'd be worst thing to do, frankley most of us want the XS chat removed, we don't use it, don't want it, don't care,and it causes lag, get rid of it, we sure don't want events getting into that ridiculousness.

[jasonroy]

it is important to do so that in the event that one battle with somebody is finished, at that point the second time this player no longer runs over. and afterward there is no issue. twin goes over once in a short time. I don't see the issue.

[fsscommander]

guys can you show me HOW to load my affiliates? I'm level 36 and I couldn't load my affiliates in vitual battle, well that's probably because I don't know how to. But then I'm not such cheater.